Интервью по телевидению. Но при этом, в отличие от других прославленных имен в национальной науке, его биография, наугад повторяемая многажды в газетах и журналах, на самом деле неизвестна

The Tiele tribal union included both the Oğurs and other Oğuric-Turkic peoples, i.e. peoples speaking variants of West Old Turkic (also termed Oğuric or Bulğaric) and the Common-Turkic-speaking Toquz Oğuz tribes in the east from which the Uyğurs ultimately emerged as the leaders (Pulleyblank, 1956: 34-2;⁸¹ Czeglédy, 1983:109-112).

An oft-discussed, but still not fully untangled letter of the Türk Qağan to the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (582-602), preserved by Theophylactus Simocattes (1972: 257-259, 1986:188-190), which may have come to Simocattes in an already garbled form and was probably dispatched very early in the reign of Maurice (as suggested by Whitby and Whitby in Theophylactus Simocattes, 1986: 188n.32, 198-199n.43; Whitby, 1988:316), tells of events that included the defeat and expulsion of the Asian Avars by the Türks, (552-555) and the conquests of the latter extending to the Pontic steppes. The Tongdian reports that the Türk Qağan Muqan (see above) had his forces advance westward, defeating the fugitive Rouran/Avar fragments and the Hephthalites (Chin. Yida 悒 or 挹 達, Yada 嚈噠).⁸⁹ “In the east, he marched on the Qitan. He went to the north and subjugated the 契骨Qigu (EMC k^h ɛt kwǝt = Qırğız, Pulleyblank, 1990:99, more probably a rendering of *Qırqır⁹⁰). All the countries beyond the borders of China submitted to him out of fear.” His lands extended from the Liaohai in the east to the Northern Sea (Beihai = Lake Baykal) in the north and the Western Sea (Xihai) in the west.⁹¹ Theophylactus Simocattes believed these fleeing Avar/Rouran elements, which he identifies as the War-Huns (Οὐάρ and Χουνί), to be imposters, the “Pseudo-Avars.” The War-Huns passed themselves off, he avers, as the Avars, a misunderstanding that has produced a lengthy, disputatious literature than need not detain us here.⁹² It is clear from Menander that the War-Huns are or contained Asian Avar/Rouran elements.⁹³ European Avar antecedents remain problematic.⁹⁴ Theophylactus Simocattes reports that the Qağan tells of his victory over the Ὀγὼρ, one of the most powerful people in the east, whose “home” was on the River Τὶλ (i.e. Atıl/Ätil, the Volga⁹⁵, Theophylactus Simocattes, 1972: 258, Theophylactus Simocattes, 1986: 189). The Türks conquered both the Uyğurs in the east and the Oğuric tribes in the Volga-North Caucasian and Pontic steppes – those that had not fled with the Avars to Pannonia. In 576, the Uturğurs under their leader, Anağay (Ἀναγαῖος) were among the Türk-led forces that attacked the Byzantine city of Bosporus (Panticapaeum in antiquity, now Kerč’) in the Crimea (Menander, 1985: 172/173, 178/179; Pohl, 1988: 40, 67) as the Türks vented their anger at Constantinople for its dealings with the Avars.

There can be little doubt that the Oğuric peoples came to the Pontic steppes from the east. Their language is the probable source for a number of early Turkic borrowings in Mongolic (see Schönig, 2003: 403-419), pointing to their eastern “Urheimat.” Whether these terms are to be explained as stemming from a common “Altaic” language family or the result of centuries of interaction, melding or areal convergence among distinct and linguistically unrelated groups remains a much-discussed question – not to be resolved here.⁹⁶ In any event, this “genetic” or “areal/convergence” relationship could only have taken place in the South Siberian-Mongolian-Manchurian borderlands.

Is there a connection between oq, used in the sense of a politico-social (kinship) and military unit, and Oğur ~ Oğuz, which before it became fixed (or fossilized) as an ethnonym or component of an ethnonym also denoted a socio-political grouping or tribe/sub-tribe?

Gyula Németh in his magnum opus on Hungarian origins (first published in 1930), following Ligeti (1925: 382), suggested that Oğuz derived from oq + uz (Németh, 1991: 77-79, ­-uz ), a position earlier put forward, in passing, by Marquart (1914:37, who incorrectly viewed –uz as denoting “Mann,” hence Oğuz = “Pfeilmänner” ). Németh’s view has a number of adherents today (e.g. Sümer, 1981: 124-25; Taşağıl, 2004a: 92; Çağbayır, 2007, IV: 3590, 3593 and Kafesoğlu, 2011: 144). Kafesoğlu, who defines oq and oğuz as “Turkic tribes,” notes that there are “objections” to this etymology, but, nonetheless, finds it “logically consistent” from a social and historico-political as well as linguistic perspective. Pritsak (1952/2007: 59-60/71-72 [13-14]), cited oq < *oqu as an example of oq “arrow” also serving as the term for a military unit. Indeed, overall he conflates military and socio-political organization (and hence terminology) among the “Altaic” peoples. He offers a slight variation on Németh’s theory, positing: oq > oğus > oğuz in which the latter refers “to a wing of the core tribes among the T’u-chüe [Türks, pbg] and Uighur.” He also renders oq as “tribe” (Pritsak, 1952/2007: 59, 60/72, 74 [14, 16]). Kononov (1958: 83-84) in his commentary to Abu’l-Ġâzî’s Šäǰärä-yi Tärâkimä, provides a useful summary of these hypotheses.

However appealing an etymology from oq might be, the etymology of Oğuz (and hence Oğur) from oq + -uz has problems. Oğur-Oğuz cannot be derived from it (Róna-Tas, 1999: 284 and his broader remarks in Róna-Tas, 2011:226-227 on the rhotacism question, which is connected to this⁹⁷). The shift of intervocalic -q- > -ğ- found frequently in Turkic is not typical of oq in Old Turkic (e.g. KT, E33 yüz arDwq oqwn urDı “([the enemy] hit him with more than one hundred arrows,” Berta, 2004: 159-160, n.1562, User, 2010: 449⁹⁸). Turkish and Turkmen, as with most modern Turkic languages retain –q (Mod. Turk. –k) in oq, cf. oka tutmak/oqa tutmaq “to shower with arrows,” “to fire upon” (Çağbayır, 2007, IV:3595-3596, Frank, Touch-Werner, 1999: 411). Siberian Turkic is an exception (e.g. Khakas ot uğı “serdcevina ognja, bukv. “strela ognja,” Butanaev, 1999: 164) as is also Qaračay-Balqar oq [> oğu] “bullet; sting (of a bee),” Tenišev and Sujunčev, 1989: 493). If Oğur ~ Oğuz cannot stem from Old Turkic oq (“arrow”) what is their origin?

Kononov (1958:84) suggested a connection between oğuz and kinship terms, such as oğul “descendants, son” (Clauson, 1972: 83-84 “offspring, child,” see Sevortjan, 1974: 414-416 for further extended meanings)⁹⁹ and oğuš “sorodič,” but, along with others, pointed to the impossibility of oq > oğuz, as noted above. Chinese accounts regularly render the Toquz Oğuz as Jiu Xing 九 姓 (the “Nine Surnames/Clan [Names],” Liu, 1958. I: 158, 170: II: 591-593, n.831; Hamilton, 1962: 24-25). The Toquz Oğuz constituted the most significant grouping of the eastern Tiele union and this term is most commonly used by the Islamic sources to denote the Uyğurs (Golden, 1992:145-146, 155-156). The Chinese translation of oq in On Oq and oğuz in Toquz Oğuz as xing “surname/clan name/tribe” was not accidental.

Hamilton (1962: 23-25), followed similar lines, connecting oğuz with oğuš and oğul, and proffered a derivation from a root *oğ- or *oğu- “procréer”?¹⁰⁰ Furthermore, he suggested that oğuz was a variant of oğuš, coming from *Toquz Oğuš and resulting from “une assimilation harmonique” producing Toquz Oğuš > Toquz Oğuz. There is no evidence for a -š > -z shift. Moreover, given what we know of the Tiele and the role of various groupings using the name oğur ~ oğuz one does not have to stray that far afield.

Similarly, Sevortjan (1974: 416) placed his comments on oğuš, another kinship term within his entry on oğul, deriving them from the “common root *oğ- or *oq- (or perhaps *uq- or *uğ-) “roždat’” (with Tenišev, 2001: 314, following him) and distinguished it from oq “arrow, beam, pole” and uq “rod, poroda, potomstvo, imja” and ‘žerdi kupola jurty,” a term with a very similar range of meanings (Sevortjan, 1974: 583-584).

In Turkic texts through the 11^th century, oğuš denoted “rod, plemja” (Nadeljaev et al. 1969: 365, User, 2010: 292-293 “boy, kabile”), “clan” (Kâšġarî, 1982-1985, I: 104 = Arab. ‘ašîra,¹⁰¹ also I: 123, II: 7, 16, and I:165, oğušluğ “a man with a clan,”, 241 är oğušlandı “the man acquired a party and kinsmen”), “pokolenie, rod, rodnja, rodstvennik, plemja” (Sevortjan, 1974: 416), cf. also Çağbayır, 2007, IV: 3593: ogus “kabile; soy, sop; aile, klan, nesil” (Old Uyğur); oguş “erkek evlat” (Old Turkic), “kabile; nesil; boy; oymak; aile, hısım, akraba, soy” (Türk and Old Uyğur). Clauson (1972: 96, with Berta, 2004: 164, 167 [BQ, E25, 31], etc. and Tekin, 2006: 44, 60 [BQ, N1, BQ, E31] etc.) preferred to vocalize it as uğuš, which he defines: “in the early period a population unit smaller than a tribe or clan…but larger than a single unitary family, ‘extended family’ or less precisely ‘family’.” Further meanings flowing from that are “a generation or degree of relationship.”

It can be reasonably inferred that oğul, oğuš, oğulčuq “womb” (Clauson, 1972: 86) and oğlaq “kid, young goat” (Clauson, 1972: 84-85, Çağbayır, 2007, IV: 3590-3591), stem from a common root denoting progeny, family and kinship.¹⁰² Kononov attempted to connect oğul et al. with ög “mother” (Clauson, 1972: 99) which is impossible, but deduced an unattested form oğ (oq)“clan, tribe” (Kononov, 1958: 84 and Kononov, 1980: 145, followed with some mistakes by Gumilëv, 1967: 61-62, see also the remarks of Sevortjan, 1974: 415-416).

Radlov (1893-1911, I/2: 1605) and Räsänen (1969: 511) associated uq with Mong. uġ (Luvsandédév, Cédéndamba, 2001, II: 300) “osnovanie, koren’…načalo, isxod, vozvyšenie, proisxoždenie, rodoslovie, rod.” Uq, however, need not be viewed as a loanword from Mongol. Here, with some caution, we may take into account the Altaic root suggested by the Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages (Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, 2003, II: 1491): *úkʻu “kin, clan,” Proto-Tung. *uK-“unity, accord, kin, successors;” Proto-Mong. *(h)ug “origin, kin;” Proto-Turk *uk “kin, tribe,” Old Turk. uq~ oq, Čuv. jъ^wχ (not to be confused with oq “arrow”), Jpn. *úkárà “clan, family”). Tenišev et al. (2001:323) also note an Old Uyğur uq (of uncertain vocalization) and Qazaq dialect uq, which is viewed as first denoting “rod, poroda, plemja, potomstvo, pokolenie” (referencing Sevortjan, 1974: 582: uq). Tenišev et al. 2001: 323, associate uq with “tribal names formed from it” in the plural: uğur, oğuz, oğur. The possibility of uq ~ oq (“kin, tribe”) > oğur et al. has to be considered.

Clues for a solution to our problem may, perhaps, be found in two other forms of the ethnonym Onoğur: Onoğundur (Οὐννγουνδούροι) recorded by Nicephorus (1990: 70/71) and Theophanes (1883/1980, I: 356), used in tandem with the ethnonym Bulğar and by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his De Thematibus (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 1952: 85) who says that the Bulğars had earlier called themselves by this name. This name became וננתר *Vonuntur in the Khazar – Hebrew correspondence and *وُنُنْدُر *Vunundur in the Ḥudûd al-‘Âlam (see sources and discussion in Golden, 2005:216-217, on the Hungarian vestige of this ethnonym nándor, which survives as a toponym, Nándorfejérvár [Belgrad] < West Old Turkic *wnandur < *wănandur < *uanandur < *onundur < onugundur, < onogundur, see Róna-Tas and Berta, 2011, II: 1233), the term for the Danubian Bulğars. This form of the name is also reminiscent of the اُلُغُنْدُر (*ʼ^wl[^w]ġ^wnd^wr = *Uluġundur < *Uluğ Oğundur (if not a corruption of *اُنُغُنْدُر ʼ^wn^wġ^wnd^wr Onoğundur) recorded by Hišâm al-Kalbî (d. 204/219-220, Marquart, 1924:275).¹⁰⁵ Of paramount concern to us is the form On-oğundur. The latter part of this form has never been satisfactorily explained. Oğundur, I would suggest, stems from *oğ + the collective/plural in –Vn + dVr (another collective suffix), cf. the plural form in –Vn (e.g. boδ “tribe” > boδun “people, nation, tribes,” er “man, warrior” eren “men” and later “fighting men,” and oğlan, noted above (Clauson, 1962/ 2002: 148, Clauson, 1972: 83-84,192, 232; Kononov, 1980:146; Erdal, 1991, I: 91-92; Németh, 1991: 83, 97, 99, 102-103; Pritsak, 1952 /2007: 77/[39]97: -dVr/-tVr).¹⁰⁶ Examples may be seen in: Ζαβενδέρ¹⁰⁷ (*J̌abındır? Čavındır < čav “fame, good reputation” Clauson, 1972: 392), the Oğuz tribe in the Boz Ulus: Čavuldur, Čavdır ~ Čavundur (Sümer, 1980: 140, 142, 177, 208; Németh, 1991: 97) the Oğuz subgroupings İgdir/Yigdir, and Bayındır/Bayındur (the name is found among the Kimek and Oğuz, among the latter it became the ruling house of the Aq Qoyunlu confederation) and the Monğoldor (< Monğoldur) and Qara Monğoldor of the Qırğız noted by Németh and Pritsak (see also Lezina, Superanskaja, 1994, I:186, 216 , II:301, 427, who do not cite the Qundur mentioned by Németh).

It might also be noted that the Old Qırğız runiform inscriptions record the word oğdamdam which seems to have denoted an ethnonym or some extended kinship grouping (see texts in Kormušin, 2008: 155 [Elegest or Ir Xol’, Tuva, line 3], 161 [Uyuk-Oorzak, II, Tuva, line 3], 162 [Uyuk-Oorzak III, Tuva, line 1]) all of which are preceded or followed by toquz.

Aside from the example of the On Oq, the word oq as “arrow” is not used in the sense or “tribe”/”military sub-division” in any of the early Turkic materials available to us. Hence, the question may well be asked: is there another word, homophonous with oq that could have been the actual source of this particular usage or confounded with its homonym oq? The possibility of its conflation with uq/uğ ~ oq/oğ should also not be excluded. The Chinese rendering of both oq and oğuz (in Toquz Oğuz) as姓 xing (see above), with its strong inference of kinship, would seem to point in this direction. Oğur ~ Oğuz, Oğundur, I would argue, derive from the root *oğ or oq ~ uq (which does have the shift of intervocalic -q- > -ğ-) an early term for a kinship grouping, no longer productive and ethnonymicized by the eighth century, combined with collective/plural suffixes.¹⁰⁸

E, W, N, S East, West, North, South (in reference to inscriptions)

EMC Early Middle Chinese

KT Inscription of Kül Tegin

LMC Late Middle Chinese

MC Middle Chinese

T Inscription of Tonyuquq

Blockley, R.C. 1983. The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire.

Chavannes, E. (ed., trans.). 1941. Documents sur les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) occidentaux, suivi de Notes Additionnelles (Paris: Librairie d’Amérique de d’Orient, Adrien- Maisonneuve)

Chavannes, E, 2007. Çin Kaynaklarına Göre Batı Türkleri, Turk. Trans. M. Koç, ed. D. A. Batur

(Istanbul: Selenge) which sometimes offers a slightly different translation.

Kjuner, N.V. 1961. Kitajskie izvestija o narodax Južnoj Sibiri, Central’noj Azii i Dal’nego Vostoka (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Vostočnoj Literatury).

Kmoskó, M. 2004. Szír írók a steppe népeiről, ed. Sz. Felföldi in Magyar Őstörténeti Könytár, 20, ed. I. Zimonyi (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó)

Kormušin, I.V.2008. Tjurkskie enisejskie épitafii. Grammatika. Tekstologija (Moskva: Nauka) Liu, Mau-tsai, 1958. Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (T’u- Küe), Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen, 10 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz), 2 vols.

Maljavkin, A.G. 1989. Tanskie xroniki o gosudarstvax Central’noj Azii (Novosibirsk: Nauka).

Moriyasu, T. and Ochir, A. (eds.) 1999. Provisional Report of Researches on Historical Sites and Inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998 (Osaka: The Society of Central Eurasian Studies).

Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej. 1841-2004 (Moskva-Sankt-Peterburg/Petrograd/ Leningrad: Istoriko-arxeografičeskaja komissija Akademii Nauk)

Sims-Williams, N. and Hamilton, J. 1990. Documents turco-sogdiens du IXe-Xe siècles de Touen houang, Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicum (London: School of Oriental and African Studies)

Taşağıl, A. 1995. Gök-Türkler I (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu)

Taşağıl, A.1999. Gök-Türkler II (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu)

Taşağıl, A.2004. Gök-Türkler III (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu)

Taşağıl, A. 2004a. Çin Kaynaklarına Göre Eski Türk Boyları (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu)

Taskin, V.S. 1984. Materialy po istorii drevnix kočevyx narodov gruppy dunxu (Moskva: Nauka)

Tekin, T. 2006. Orhon Yazıtları (Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu)

Thomsen, V. 1896. Inscriptions de l’Orkhon déchiffrées, Mémoires de la Société Finno- Ougrienne, V (Helsingfors: Société de la Littérature Finnoise) and the Turkish version: Orhon ve Yenisey Yazıtlarının Çözümü İlk Bildiri. Çözülmüş Orhon Yazıtları, trans. V. Köken (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1993).